tv [untitled] May 4, 2011 7:30am-8:00am PDT
city's restrictions are. i know there is some language that says that since there have been general plan changes, even though the general plan applies, it seems to indicate that there are some restrictions on what the interpretation of the general plan has to be on planning and land use decisions. i think that is right. that seems to be extremely -- i do not know the right word. if the housing element were changed in the future, there were policies that conflicted with the plan. those would not apply.
that does nothing to apply. on ballot measures the way it would read, it would be passed by the voters. the island become some sort of anti in itself. this can be done by this commission on the board of supervisors. >> commissioner miguel. >> i would like to thank them for the amount of work that they put in. as well as the rest of the staff.
who has control over what? >> thank you, commissioner. commissioners sugaya raised some important issues. when this was a redevelopment project, the land use of gordy was lifted from the planning commission and the planning department. in this case, we are not adopting the redevelopment plan. the land use and jurisdiction remains with the planning department. what is getting complicated is that this is also the trustee for the public trust. they have authority over trust lands.
that is in essence were all of the development or most of the development is happening. these are all being built on non trust lands. these are the various plans that have been laid out here. >> could you explain how a d4d in this or any other instance in which is used is affected by future changes in legislation? >> the development agreement that is before you blocks in the entitlements, recognizing that this project is going to be built over 15-20 years.
there is the recognition that you are going to take time, but you are a entitling the project now. fifth the city comes in and says we want to reduce all heights down to 40 feet, that would not affect this project. it would not have an effect on this project. >> basically an entitlement contract. in this instance, it is over a longer period of time. that being said, i would like to go back to something that john paul mentioned in our earlier item when we talked about change. to me, what a planning department and commission does is to affect change.
we are and trimming -- instrument of change. this project is a perfect example. this was envisioned as an airport. probably john stuart, i do not know if he is still in the room, we may have been the only two that were there at the fair. and still remember it. i served my naval air duties at hangar two. they change from the previous period when i had my business, i did at all of my party is at the chapel at the officer's club. now we are considering another change. that is exactly what planning
does. it a effectuates change. this is an evolution. this is the way things happen. i do not find it unusual at all that we are contemplating these massive acres of recreation and open space land of a community of up to 8000 units where we complained that we are supposed to come up for san francisco, absorber population. we complain that we have no place to put them. here is a place to put it. and to be able to design, rather than struggle with a little infill here, a little infill there.
to design something and have control of it. this is in the long run. with that, i am satisfied with the work that has been done. i am particularly pleased with the work of the department. i would like to move items two a-h. >> second. >> i would like to have a couple of or comments to the fact that we develop the plan. today, we are looking at the the infrastructure of financing the district plan with the caveat that this is supposed to be an area plan. i would also like to say that the development agreements were written for projects which were far more designed and explicit
about the intent about what they were trying to do. this is specific architecturally. it is delineated to this project. this project is designed to a level of the sketch diagram at best. i believe the agreement should be structured so that any future changes should apply to phases of development which have not received project approval from the planning commission. we have been working diligently over the past few years. they have worked to transform core planning code to a more effective tool of raising sustainable communities. we have stubborn pockets of antiquated zoning. we should not recreate this unhappy state of affairs with
the development agreement. future phases should conform to their current code requirement. this should reflect the most recent on special area plans, the ones that i just mentioned. i would like to comment on the shortcomings. and moving all of these things into one motion. this requires massive commitments of the funding code and the general plan among many others. this alone requires a high degree of scrutiny and accountability for all regulating documents including the document which guides the design of the project and divine -- the sign for development. in reviewing this document, it requires more than simply reading it.
that requires physical testing. you can see if networks. i had to spend a little bit of time. i chose blocks 6b and 6a, which i chose for the purpose of this review. these blocks were chosen randomly. this shows that that they are incomplete. the few guidelines that are examined raise different questions. they require direction and supervision of others, more detailed guidelines. they will set out for light projects. i request that each guideline
that is summarized can be checked against current code. they would enable current guidelines and practice. for a project, this would take more than 20-30 years to be fully realized. i have further requests that more specific guidelines be given for the open space. building articulations and variety with the ability as it is known in san francisco neighborhoods. i further regret, i do not think this document does this at the moment, i further request that specific guidelines are developed for the consultation plan.
the guidelines as they stand should be defined themselves that the heights required do not apply to designing the kind of buildings that i just described. they totally missed the point. they do not address the issues of coverage and mid blocked open space or any of the things which we care about. i have applied these guidelines. i will submit them for your own review. i am not here to criticize you. these guidelines do not work. i am not comfortably supporting that we are designing this quality. >> commissioner borden. >> a few questions for staff.
>> we are not a party to the planning agreement. >> the development agreement you are party to. >> for the design for development, that is something can evolve. the design is correct? >> this can be evolved to the extend that any proposed changes do not have the basic vested raises in the agreement. >> there are some of the structural issues that the commissioner has raised. those things will go to the future bank does not work.
>> the commission is the body that has the authority. >> we still have that discretion. we actually have a greater discretion than we would have in the previous iteration. what is the percentage of trust land versus non trust land? >> most of the development is happening on non trust land under state land rules. you cannot build housing on trust property. >> architecture should increase with this change, not decrease. we will have properties coming before us on a regular basis. >> you have no land use jurisdiction. >> the current version of the 8000 housing units in the
general open space, was that approved it? >> yes, it was. >> the project has evolved. a lot of stuff has happened. the basic structure of this project including design for development, which did not change as much as the chair -- planning mechanism has been voted on and supported by various bodies over the last several years. >> this has been an evolving document. it has been before the planning commission for comment. but we are establishing a floor.
this is an opportunity for finances to work out, correct? >> we are actively working to try to change state law. to increase the amount of an increment available on this. if those changes were to happen, we would increase the amount of affordable housing. >> it would be disadvantageous if it were to become a redevelopment site. if something happened, we would actually lose jurisdiction. that is just a question, i think. >> we could put this in the planning code. it has been consistent. we have a series of projects that will come to us along the
way. the other thing that i thought was interested is the issue of the statement overriding considerations is that there is a quality of life for the current residence on the island that we are overlooking. amenities exists for those people that live on the island today. without those improvements, we are putting them in great jeopardy. to do nothing actually hurts the quality of life and has a greater impact on the people living there. they have the opportunity to improve their quality of life. we have a great need for housing. i personally prefer the 30%. i hope we can get to that 30%. 25% is still better than 0%.
300 acres of open space is a net benefit. improvements for those people on the island. from my standpoint, i see that this is a need to plan, if not for the people who live there, then a greater impact for the general plan. they are more affordable housing and recreation and open space. there are other elements of their general plan. it seems very logical that this project would be the negative impacts are outweighed by the larger general plans that come from it. the byproduct of was gaining general jurisdiction in the planning department is a greater thing in trying to conform to the overall planning code. we can improve those areas that
do not exactly work today. this is an important designation that is in these documents. the biggest thing that has changed is this. i know the project has been around for 10 years. that threw us for a loop. i do not think that doing nothing will be a better alternative. it does not seem that in the near future that a better alternative will exist. gang it does exist, they will be able to take advantage of that and move forward. i am very comfortable with approving the findings and the overall project. i think the net benefits will outweigh the negative impacts that have unidentified here. that puts us in a position to doom more planning around this.
if this developer and stop the developer, we know that this is an exact -- and an excellent example. when the developer went away, somebody took up all of those obligations in that plan. the nature of the development agreement is that that is how it works. we locked in some greater benefits. there might be some advantages of things that have not changed. that sounds to me that things in the development agreement are not things that we care about. >> and i wanted to thank staff for all of their work. as one of the speakers mentioned, we are to gauge the impact of the project. the overriding consideration
should be measured by the impacts of the project. we are not there yet. already just a few of the impacts of the project. i am getting sleepy. i will try to keep it brief. i wanted to try to make it known what some of those impacts are, even though this is a public document and people can go to the website to request this document from our department. a couple of examples. the proposed project would contribute to a cumulative congestion in downtown san francisco which would increase travel time and increase operation of muni. it would contribute to downtown congestion in san francisco.
the proposed project would contribute to a cumulative congestion in downtown san francisco, which would increase travel time. the proposed project would contribute to cumulative congestion in downtown san francisco, which would increase travel time. implementation of the proposed project parking supply maximum would exacerbate the capacity utilization standard on muni's treasure island bus line. the project related construction activities would increase noise levels above existing ambient conditions. hopefully, you do not fall asleep during this period construction activities cannot expose them to ground born noise level or vibration.
construction of the proposed project -- increases in traffic from the project would result in cumin the tiv noise increases. project related construction activities in combination of other cumulative development would increase noise levels above the existing ambient conditions. those are just a few that i read. that is seven or eight out of over 30. identified and packs. the level of significance after litigation is still significant and unavoidable. that is not something that i would continue to subject residents of this city to. i made mention of this before as far as this is concerned.
i am just going toquote from his letter. i have never made any secrets about my view that this project is over park. the residential parking ratio, one parking space per dwelling unit is too high. it would make this an unsustainable subdivision. the ratio should match that of most these in neighborhoods in the district. one for every tv appeal districts. reducing residential parking below one space per unit has proven effective as a housing affordability strategy which lowers the cost per household willing to do without a private car. nonresidential parking, the nonresidential parking ratios proposed for the project are too high. using the standards from 151.1
is fair and consistent and reduce drive alone visitor and worker trips to and from the island. as it relates to the affordable housing, we are disappointed to see the percentage of below market rate units from 30% to 25%. the housing need in san francisco is more than 60% below market rate. this project should stick to the 30% market rate. one strategy that should be explored is to reduce overhead costsof the total project cost presented in the discussion, 6% is for marketing and management. 4% for planning and entitlement. these line items can be reduced and in some cases, and eliminated. the windfall can be translated
back into affordable housing. i realize that these are issues that can be raised that the board. these have not been resolved yet. they will not be before the night is over. although redevelopment is not completely over and may never be, i realize that the project sponsor does feel somewhat uncomfortable or insecure about where the governor might be going with this issue. they prefer to go the ifd route. it does lessen the obligation of the developer as it relates to affordable housing in the city where we have clearly identified the need. i come from the working class. i understand the struggles of working families. we have untitled thousands of units of housing in san francisco over the last several years. many that labour have come out
and been forced to endorse. just because we do entitle a development, it does not always end up in the labour force. some people do benefit from the entitlements that they receive here. it is not always the labor force. at some point, the planning department needs to look at some of those projects that we have untitled. they are moving forward slowly. we have been titled eastern neighborhoods. there have been several individual projects that we have untitled on 10th and market. the list goes on. i have not seen any of those projects break ground. there will be plenty of jobs in place for the work force. they will be moved ahead.
i hope to see these projects move ahead. sooner rather than later. from what i can remember, if we moved ahead on and lot of the projects, we have entitled to a lot of labor is being employed now. that is the case. in my sandbox to day, i got a letter from supervisor daily that i want us to read into the record. people can say what they will about him. he was a real force in making sure that there was an equitable -- that equity was included in the issues in the development.
the proposed treasure island. the board adopted a term sheet for treasure island. that call for 30%. this was by the office of the board. this was an increase in density and development. only 2840 units of housing were contemplated for treasure island. in 2010, after significant deliberation with the office of housing, i supported an amendment term sheet that increase the unocal out to 8000 units, but maintained the 30% affordability.